Being "Fair" to Terrorists

It's hard to believe that John Paul Stevens and the rest of the liberal bloc on the Supreme Court didn't know what they were doing when, in the Hamdan decision, they asserted that tribunals for trying terrorists could only be established by Congress.

As this news report highlights, Congress is too full of too many little emperors to expeditiously create an efficient process for adjudication that guarantees some minimum standard of fairness (that's why authority, especially over matters touching on war and piece, is supposed to be centered in the executive -- so that there's one leader, avoiding dissension, delay and petty quibbling).

Amazingly, some senators are worried about whether it would be fair, in some limited circumstances, not to give accused terrorists classified information they might want for their defense:

The Bush administration's proposal drew continued skepticism from lawmakers, with questions raised about the authority it would grant the defense secretary and whether barring a defendant from classified evidence would be fair.

First, it's worth noting that these proceedings aren't going to be (and haven't been) Communist-style kangaroo courts, with a judge who's come into the case with a foreordained result. There's no reason to believe that terrorists must be supplied with classified info to prevent their being railroaded by a judge who's eager to lock up innocents. Second, the senators should be a little less worried about being "fair" to accused terrorists and instead ask themselves whether turning over classified military information to them -- information that isn't available to the most honorable and patriotic citizens without a security clearance -- is, in fact, "fair" to the citizens of America.